Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: robthewordsmith Date: Jan 28, 2010 10:27am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Caught by the reaper in the rye

Farewell J.D. Salinger, gone at age 91.


"Boy, when you're dead, they really fix you up. I hope to hell when I do die somebody has sense enough to just dump me in the river or something. Anything except sticking me in a goddam cemetery. People coming and putting a bunch of flowers on your stomach on Sunday, and all that crap. Who wants flowers when you're dead? Nobody."

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Jan 28, 2010 11:08am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

I guess it's important for it's influence perhaps? Or maybe because it was ahead of it's time in 1951 ahead of the uprising of youth and adolescent questioning the social norms?

Whichever, I read it in High School and thought it was the most over rated peice of trash I've ever read. I mean all the character does is whine bitch and brood. Anyone else find this kid annoying as hell?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: robthewordsmith Date: Jan 28, 2010 11:18am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

"I mean all the character does is whine bitch and brood."

Didn't we all?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Jan 28, 2010 12:27pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

" Didn't we all? "

no. I mean I wasn't a conformist by any stretch - ever - but man that guy came off like a puss

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: robthewordsmith Date: Jan 28, 2010 12:50pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

Isn't the point that most teenagers have their heads so far up their asses that they don't see daylight for a few years?

Maybe some people just never lose that point of view...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: direwolf0701 Date: Jan 28, 2010 1:09pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: robthewordsmith Date: Jan 28, 2010 1:18pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

Class. Absolute class.


You have to recognise and acknowledge posting mastery when you see it. Look and learn you long-winded upstarts.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: snori Date: Jan 28, 2010 3:21pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

You've been watching 'Dead Poets Society' again haven't you Dire ?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: direwolf0701 Date: Jan 28, 2010 4:20pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

(damn!! busted yet again!!)



:)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Jan 28, 2010 1:20pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

oh yeah, I have one of those HA! Good kid but it's funny

I just kind of did my own thing and didn't complain too much and hoped that my Dad never caught me. Just never liked whiners.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jan 28, 2010 3:59pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

I think that there is defn that self indulgent aspect to it, but as SDH notes, the writing, in and of itself, is interesting to me...it's just like Cor. Mcarthy, which just to piss off Dire, I'll say has really got his head up his "juvenile/preoccupied with violence/sexist ass" too, but he can sure write.

Does this apply to Rob equally?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: direwolf0701 Date: Jan 28, 2010 1:19pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

"didnt" we all???

i think many here still do.... and often

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: robthewordsmith Date: Jan 28, 2010 1:24pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

Word.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Jan 28, 2010 1:46pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

I was wondering if anyone was going to point that out.

I have a 16, almost 17-year-old who thinks Catcher in the Rye is great. So I dunno.

Same issues came up around remembrance when Kurt Vonnegut died (another unrepentant atheist).

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: direwolf0701 Date: Jan 28, 2010 2:26pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

i was even wondering if it was still read in high schools. been so long, and mine havent reached that age yet. still a book i have to reread for old times sake, along with Siddhartha (sp?)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Jan 28, 2010 5:54pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

It definitely is.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: direwolf0701 Date: Jan 28, 2010 6:09pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

cool - i can borrow my daughters copy(ies) when they get to it in three or four years ;)


on the related note - i was never a huge Vonnegut fan. just dont see the linguistic appeal, but will admit it has been atleast 15 years since i have picked up a book of his. i'm always for giving an author another shot (especially one held in such esteem by so many)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: snori Date: Jan 28, 2010 3:23pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

Oh how I love Vonnegut ! I once saw a programme on Channel 4 here which was a real minority channel when it started up (it now hosts Big Brother and I'm a Celebrity where the only minority element is brain cells, but I digress) in which Kurt Vonnegut and Heinrich Boell were discussing their experiences as POWs. Talk about gripping - the details they shared in common, eg breaking cigarettes in half to trade for food etc. The shared experience of their war really brought home the personal element in an international conflict. Sorry, it just all came to me in a rush.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Jan 28, 2010 5:57pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

I love Vonnegut too.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Finster Baby Date: Jan 28, 2010 1:46pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

JOTS...right there with you man. Hated that book!!
Had to do a term paper on it in junior year. The whole basis of my thesis was that Holden was the phoniest person in the book!!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: roughyed Date: Jan 28, 2010 11:22am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

Yes - as we'd say in Lancashire, "Nowt to write 'ome about".
His death will upstage Howard Zinn thanks to pinko meejah-types. I've posted a Zinn excerpt under bd's original thread.
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" -Salinger didn't dissent, he whined.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: SomeDarkHollow Date: Jan 28, 2010 11:18am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

Well, if you don't have time to read the book, just turn on the radio and half the crap you'll hear is pretty much just that.

"Hey, check me out. I'm young and misunderstood. I'm so goddamn sensitive that I just might explode in a supernova of self pity"

JD must have loved Nirvana.

Seriously, the writing is exceptional even if you don't care much for the overral message.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: snori Date: Jan 28, 2010 3:37pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

'Seriously, the writing is exceptional even if you don't care much for the overall message' That's exactly how I feel about 'Lord of the Flies'.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jan 28, 2010 4:20pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

Ha! Good point...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jan 28, 2010 12:35pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

Right; I think that I actually had somewhat of the response of JOTS, but see it as extremely valuable both for his note about timeliness (a great deal flows from him in terms of historical writing--ie, he was foundational, and the writing itself, independent of message, is exceptional, IMHO.

Anyhow, I think we should put flowers on his grave and read his books, but we Irish have a big thing about honoring the DEAD in that way...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: SomeDarkHollow Date: Jan 28, 2010 12:55pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

As a good Irishman I can honestly say I'd rather have a happy drunk pass out on my grave then bunch of generic flowers.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jan 28, 2010 3:57pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

Fair enough; I'll water you when you fall...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cush212 Date: Jan 28, 2010 4:10pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

Don't forget to dump a bunch of shit... I mean fertilizer on me in the spring and fall...

;)

All well in AZ? Surviving the storms?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jan 28, 2010 4:19pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

Yup; we needed the rain!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cush212 Date: Jan 29, 2010 10:12am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

In the middle of a stinking desert???

I know you're jiving me now...

;)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: snow_and_rain Date: Jan 28, 2010 12:16pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Smoke gets in the rye? -- weird and pointless fun facts

In the spirit of drawing connections between totally unrelated items, I submit the following:

Most of us know that "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes" was the last song that Jerry Garcia recorded (for the movie "Smoke").

- The song written by Jerome Kern, for whom Jerome "Jerry" Garcia was named.

- The song is referenced in "Catcher in the Rye," a book written by Jerome David Salinger.

So take that for whatever it's worth...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: midnight sun Date: Jan 28, 2010 6:30pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Smoke gets in the rye? -- and a carousel ride

keep forgetting about the Jerome connection - nice!
among 700 other songs, Kern also wrote Ol' Man River and the jazz standard, All The Things You Are which has inspired jazz artists to this day


this lyric reminds me of the scene with Holden and Phoebe at the end of Catcher...
"Midnight, on a carousel ride
Reaching for the gold ring, down inside
Never could reach
It just slips away, when I try."

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: snow_and_rain Date: Jan 29, 2010 7:25am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Smoke gets in the rye? -- and a carousel ride

Want another one?

Salinger's short story "Uncle Wiggly in Connecticut" was made into a critically-panned film called "My Foolish Heart."

I'm amazed by how many of you all don't like Catcher. That book really spoke to me as a teenager. He may be a whiner, but as someone said above, "weren't we all?" And by the end of the book, his attitude starts to change. He's growing up. I think that's the real message.

It reminds me a bit of "A Clockwork Orange" (the original book, not the one released in the US, and certainly not the movie). By the end, Alex starts to mature. He basically outgrows his violent, rebellious youth and becomes a man.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jan 28, 2010 10:38am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

Ah, methinks he doth protest too much...not to speak ill of the DEAD, but I would argue that a natural extension of our existential angst is the very human element of just the opposite: the hope that your life will have meaning (his certainly did!) and significance for those you left behind is most naturally manifested in precisely the manner he decries...placing flowers on his grave, or some such similar activity (perhaps re-reading a favorite passage on the anniversary of his death would be more to his liking? Or better yet, passing along a well-worn copy to someone not yet experienced with his exceptional writings?).

Anyhow, that would be my only quibble; sure, it might not be optimal to be placed in the local boneyard in his book, but the notion of flowers on a grave, even if that be only a metaphor for some other means of remberance is in large measure all that we Godless F**ks have to fall back on, right?

[suppose you, Rob, and you, elb, note that I clearly buy into some aspects of the story line of the manuscript I forwarded...independent of fatherly pride.]

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: robthewordsmith Date: Jan 28, 2010 10:47am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

Remembrance is for the living - the dead don't give a shit.


WT - you have to forgive me, I haven't read it yet, I've had work to do and I'm trying to get my tax return done before the deadline on the 31st and yes, I'm just a feeble excuse for a human being, and I will try to do better in future. Honest.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jan 28, 2010 12:32pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

Oh yeah--I guess that came out wrong; I took it as he was suggesting no one need go thru the motions of paying homage to him, and I think we all deserve that...so, though he doesn't, in one respect, he does as it validates his time on this planet (won't argue whether we really need that or not, just saying it's typically "human" to do so), and the living get a great deal out of it too...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: direwolf0701 Date: Jan 28, 2010 11:03am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

damn - havent read him in many many years. maybe it is time for a reread.

RIP - JD

(is WT sending you self written Penthouse forums to read?? how nasty)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jan 28, 2010 12:34pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

Just the pics! But, he's still having trouble reading those!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: snow_and_rain Date: Jan 28, 2010 11:05am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

"People always clap for the wrong things."

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: pHurthur Date: Jan 29, 2010 7:28am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

"WHO WANTS FLOWERS WHEN THEIR DEAD, NOBODY"

anidrunk.gif

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: direwolf0701 Date: Jan 28, 2010 1:03pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

that must be in reference to Brent tunes

;)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cush212 Date: Jan 28, 2010 3:48pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

This thread looks way too long to read... I always liked the idea of dump me in a hole in the ground and plant a tree on me...

:)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jerlouvis Date: Jan 28, 2010 5:09pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

Personally I find the message of a book to be it's most important component regardless of how well it might be written.Since his book for decades has been chosen by the people in charge of brainwashing our youth as a novel they should read,that alone should challenge it's relevance.In the few interviews I have read or watched with him,he came off as snooty and self important,especially for someone famous for a horseshit novel such as Catcher in the Rye.To have his name mentioned in the same thread as Howard Zinn is insulting,Mr. Zinn's works are what our youth should be reading,let's see how quick your local PTA is in recommending,A People's History of the United States.They won't do that when they can convey the message to be an ineffectual whiner as opposed to questioning and challenging.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: roughyed Date: Jan 29, 2010 12:52am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

Can't agree more. Also get PTAs to have Dee Brown's "Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee" on the history curriculum alondside A People's History.
And back to Salinger, he's getting more cover in the British press than Mailer!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: deadpolitics Date: Jan 28, 2010 10:47pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

Howard Zinn and in particular, A People's History of the United States was pretty much ridiculed by my high school US History teacher. It was brought as the example of how the use of ellipses in quoting documents can be used to misconstrue the original meaning of the text. The impression I was imparted was that this book was a crock of shit...

Too bad I spent way too many years ignoring his work because of this experience...

Catcher in the Rye, on the other hand, was glorified to the extreme by my 9th grade teacher. He was the most awesome weird dude. He would play harmonica and guitar singing each of the students names as they walked in the door after lunch break...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jan 29, 2010 4:54am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

I dunno...I mean, of course, at some level you have a very important point, but much writing is significant in and of itself.

To make it DEAD related again, CCS is a classic example. What meaning does that song have? I really feel this way about Mccarthy...I am uncertain the storyline has real significance in some instances (ChildGod), and his preoccupation with juv/sex/viol leaves me cold, just like JDS's whining did...But, Mccarthy can describe a scene that makes you feel like you're walking up to the edge of a desert cyn, immersing yourself in it, drying up and barely making it out the other side all the while enjoying and being scared shitless by the scenery simultaneously...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Jan 29, 2010 5:21am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

A few thoughts as my coffee kicks in ... Salinger and the Dead are a very interesting contrast - opposite extremes of artistic reclusiveness and miserliness, versus openness and generosity. I much prefer the legacy of the Grateful Dead. They were always about giving it all away. Salinger just in the past year or so (forget exactly) sued somebody who wanted to write a sequel to Catcher. He was massively on the wrong side of the copyright/creative access debate.

And Salinger obviously hated people in general. The Dead are loved by their fans partly because they loved their fans.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Jan 29, 2010 11:41am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

" He was massively on the wrong side of the copyright/creative access debate."

REALLY? I find that to be utter bullshit. He created the character the wrong side of the debate is the asshole who obviously didn't have an original idea so had to steal his.

ah you must be another one of those entitlement types who think things should be free. What I find with those types is they never think that way when it's their turn to pay

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Jan 29, 2010 12:14pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

Copyright is supposed to protect 1) the author's right to profit from his/her work; and 2) the author's right to credit for his/her work. Salinger really had nothing to complain of on either point. Copyright is supposed to actually *encourage* creativity by reassuring authors/artists that they will get their just rewards for their work. What copyright is *not* supposed to do is lock up ideas. It should be restrictive enough that people aren't discouraged from creating new works from fear someone else will take the credit and/or the money, and it should be loose enough that other people aren't discouraged from creating new works out of fear that someone will sue them for copyright violation.

Ideas, themes, subjects, character, opinions - characters ... can't be copyrighted. Just my opinion. Others see it differently. The Bradbury case was similar. Bradbury sued that filmmaker guy (name escaping me) who made Fahrenheit 9/11 - a play on his own title Fahrenheit 451 (have I got that right? having a senior moment with names and titles today). Anyway Bradbury was wrong too. IMO.

No I'm not one of those who thinks it should all be free - I just got done saying I don't think the Grateful Dead are obligated to give us all their music free forever. I'm not talking about money for sale of his work, in Salinger's case - I'm talking about someone else writing another story based on the same character. That's free speech, IMO.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Jan 29, 2010 12:25pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

" I'm talking about someone else writing another story based on the same character. That's free speech, IMO. "

maybe. You probably know more about the law behind it than me BUT I think there's something to be said about someone's intellectual property. I just think it's really lame that people can't come up with their own ideas. The more I think about it the more I believe you must be right, otherwise there wouldn't probably be a million Star wars and Star Trek books written by different people.

Legal or not I think if you don't have permission to do it you're lame to do it whether it's legal or not.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Jan 29, 2010 12:30pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

Well, it's a gray area, that's why it often winds up in court. Money is the motivator on both sides ... didn't J.K. Rowling have a lawsuit like that too?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Jan 29, 2010 12:44pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

I don't know. I know she had a deal with conterfeit books and pirated stuff over seas

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jan 30, 2010 6:15am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

Had missed you and Johnny going back and forth over this...I tend to agree with you, Ring-le-O, in the sense that having created a fictional character, why care about what someone else does with it? In fact, as cliche as it is, it IS the sincerest form of flattery.

And in fact, Johnny, your point (to me) makes this clear: given the other individual (copier) will be lesser (I agree with your premise--less creative) the work by defn will be inferior, so why would JDS be "worried" except in an entirely egotistical, spiteful fashion?

Thus, I do see it as a real sign of JDS's fundamental character flaws, etc., that Ring was getting at above.

As for MS's points that the fundamental nature of the artist need not be the focus of such critique, I understand that, but of course, after a fashion, that's what we here are doing all the time...we want to know what drives the artists we love, blah, blah, blah...so I think it only natural to pick it apart in great detail, and then make value judgments accordingly. The art is, at some level, an extension of the artist, and we would probably agree they cannot be separated entirely (Hitler's art cannot be viewed entirely objectively [completely devoid of the source), I would think...).

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Jan 30, 2010 6:33am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

I think the issue is freedom of speech and encouraging creativity rather than stifling it. Would a sequel to Catcher in the Rye, written by some poor slob, be a great book? probably not. Should it actually be *stopped* just because the author of Catcher is offended by it? probably not. Most of what gets published is dreck, but we don't pass laws to stop it because admist the dreck are occasional works of greatness! and some people like dreck :)

A character is like an idea - once it's out there, no one owns it. Salinger (or now his estate) owns the actual work "Catcher in the Rye" but doesn't own Holden Caulfield. That's my opinion anyway - the judge in the case disagreed with me.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: midnight sun Date: Jan 30, 2010 1:29pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

i think it might have gone beyond just referring to the character in name...and we don't know Salinger's motivation, an artist taking action to preserve the integrity of their work can still be a selfless endeavor...really now, if he was such an egotist then why didn't he milk the media for everything he could? i guess one could argue that lack of artist statement can be stronger than statement in the sense that the viewer's imagination is the only limit...i see Salinger and GD in a similar light as they both refused to buy into industry standards, which only tend to serve the selfish interests of publishers and record companies at the expense of the artistic integrity

one of the rules of copyright is frequency, my limited understanding is one is only allowed to rip so many bars of music before the hammer comes down...and exactly where is the line to be drawn? the Stagger Lee character is a good example of an actual historical event spun in many directions by many singers (re - Dodd's Annotated GD Lyrics)

i knew a folk singer who composed his lyrics by ripping each individual lyric from a different song, one line from Led Zep, next from Dylan, another from Jethro Tull and so on...somehow i can't imagine this to be even legal, but i guess you're right, schlock is schlock and people are going to notice it for what it is anyways...still good to see some of these scoundrels get their little pee-pee's slapped though

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Jan 31, 2010 3:42am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

Well, see, it depends on what you think creativity is. I think taking a line from various songs and trying to compose a new one *is* creativity. Wish I'd thought of it :)

There are few original geniuses among us and almost all creative work builds on works from the past. Also, you (and some others in the discussion) I think assume that the original artist should and will feel insulted, ripped off, etc. He/she could just as well feel flattered and pleased. Why should an idea or a character stay stuck in time forever - isn't the idea for it to live on? Well, some people who read it will have other thoughts or ideas or inspirations about it, nothing wrong with that.

In folk music in particular, this is really true. Think how many adaptations and versions there are of most folk tunes; a good chunk of the Dead repertoire was folk tunes they didn't write, yet put their own spin on, no? If someone had screamed "copyright" over, say, Iko Iko, we wouldn't have a lot of Dead songs.

Obviously, Salinger didn't feel this way, but it is just as valid a response, IMO. It's an interesting point about the comparison between the Dead and Salinger re: bucking industry standards.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: midnight sun Date: Jan 31, 2010 6:03am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

creative works don't get stuck in time forever, i believe works become public domain 50 years after the artist's death...Iko Iko and a lot of the Dead's traditional material was no longer protected, if it ever was...the composers of anything still protected would be entitled to compensation, seems the rules for music are different, as far as i know permission isn't needed to cover a song (there might be some restrictions of use - tv commercials?)

if some artists feel flattered that others want to copy their work then they can give their permission and sign away their rights w/o even requiring compensation if they so choose

i will agree on the inspiration part, but that's where i
would draw a safe line, after that things get blurred


as per William's comments; re - "we want to know what drives the artists..."
i don't feel an artists personal life is our business beyond what they want to reveal to us themselves...much of what is published is nothing more than gossip (although i don't mind reading what a founding band member has to say, isn't Bob writing something?) all the other second hand info does little to help us understand what the real creative process may have been, the real goodies are in the work itself

"And here's another clue for you all, the walrus was Paul..."
:)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Jan 31, 2010 6:19am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

>creative works don't get stuck in time forever, i believe works become public domain 50 years after the artist's death...

True. I guess I'm just on the side of earlier rather than later.

>Iko Iko and a lot of the Dead's traditional material was no longer protected, if it ever was...

The "if it ever was" is key - such material wasn't protected because of the *absence* of the aggressive lawyering available to someone like Salinger, the original authors of folk tunes usually being dirt poor and unknown. To the great benefit of all of us!

>the composers of anything still protected would be entitled to compensation,

Isn't that the argument Weir et al. gave re: limiting the downloads? There are a lot of people's rights involved, not just our beloved boys.

>seems the rules for music are different, as far as i know permission isn't needed to cover a song (there might be some restrictions of use - tv commercials?)

I always get a little mixed up as to the differences between performance and other types of art wrt copyright. It's a vast tangled area in the law.

>if some artists feel flattered that others want to copy their work then they can give their permission and sign away their rights w/o even requiring compensation if they so choose

and some do, that's the creative commons. Isn't John Barlow involved in this big time?

>i will agree on the inspiration part, but that's where i
would draw a safe line, after that things get blurred

For sure.

>isn't Bob writing something?)

Oh, I hope so!!

>real goodies are in the work itself

Can't dispute you there.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Jan 30, 2010 12:11pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

" why would JDS be "worried" except in an entirely egotistical, spiteful fashion?"

I dont know what the guys motivation was. All I'm saying is that if someone created something I could see why they might have a personal attachment to it. You're telling me that if you actually created something you were proud of and someone came along and decided to expand on it you wouldn't care? How about if someone painted a picture and someone took a print of that picture and added to it AFTER the artist asked them not to? We can all get caught up in what's legal and what's not blah blah blah ut if nothing else it shows a lack of class and an ego trip on the part of the person who would go ahead and do it anyway.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Jan 31, 2010 6:26am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

But why be so insulted? If you created something that someone else thought was so good they wanted to play with it too, isn't that a compliment? Certainly better than having your work ignored.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Jan 31, 2010 12:07pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

well as someone who used to draw I can tell you - art is an extension of ones self> If I made a drawing that was actually good or I thought it was good and someone took a copy of that drawing and expanded on it I wouldn't like it. Now I think a lot of musicians are flattered by it and don't mind but to each their own right? I don't know this guys motivation all I'm saying is if I wanted to do something with someones idea and they said they didnt want me to I wouldn't do it just because i legally could get away with it.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Feb 1, 2010 10:52am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

I have to say, the only way it would bother me is if it were the case they were hiding it was "mine" and making money off it as a result...otherwise, I can tell you, it has happened to me with photos and manuscripts, and I always take it as a great compliment...Not that any of "us" are making any "real" $$ out of it, but I really do believe the more PR the better!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Feb 1, 2010 12:48pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

a photo - sure it takes skill etc to be a great photographer but the rest of it is just luck. Surely it's not the same as a painting or drawing is it?

so you're telling me that if you created something by hand all original to you and someone took that and did things to it you wouldn't care? well to each their own. all i was saying is i could see why someone would care. as for your manuscript, what was it for? did you hand something in and someone changed it without your input and you didnt care?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Feb 1, 2010 2:12pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

Whoa!? I assume you are caught up in proving me "wrong", but I will give you a chance to reconsider this: you really think photography is inferior to other forms of artistic impression because you don't use your "hands"?

I know that sounds bad, J, but seriously, re-read that post--I don't think I could even respond I am so worked up right now imagining you mean this...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Feb 1, 2010 2:28pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

You're the one arguing with me, so who's trying to prove who wrong here Tell? I just said what my opinion was same as you. I didn't say you were wrong or that i was advocating some legal action etc. I'm just trying to see if you really wouldn't care about someone altering your art.

It depends what kind of photography we're talking about and how much manipulation thereof for me to answer if it's the same or not. Taking a picture of a beautiful sunset doesn't make the photgrapher the creator of the sunset now does it? either they're skilled enought to know how to oeprate the camera and lighting or lucky enough to be in the right spot imo.

so ok, shoot me off a picture your proud of taking and then tell me it's ok for me to f it up beyond recognition and publish it as long as i dont make any money off it.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Feb 1, 2010 2:36pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

Hey J--I've long since moved past the original point we were "debating" as I think you are right--we can view it differently. The stuff of mine that was modified was not the issue--do you think that because it might not be significant, that's why I don't have a leg to stand on? Do you really mean to say that?

I am now ONLY responding to what you have now made clear: photography is NOT as creative as drawing in and of itself.

BULLSHIT.

Really.

Ask Ansel Adams or any of the greats.

I think that they are ENTIRELY equivalent in terms of the effor req'd...you can say "hey, this person with fine motor skills is as much of a cheat as a photographer" if you take the stance you have...why is "doing that with your hands" any more creative?

I really don't think there is a difference, which unless I am reading you wrong, you are implying photographers are "lesser" than those that draw or paint.

I say again, BULLSHIT.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Feb 1, 2010 2:45pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

" I really don't think there is a difference, which unless I am reading you wrong, you are implying photographers are "lesser" than those that draw or paint."

I do. put it this way - I think a truly great painter is more talented than a truly great photgrapher but a truly great photgrapher can be more than a soso painter.

sorry man, yeah I see photgraphy as art but Ansel Adams aint no michelangelo or da Vinci.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Feb 1, 2010 2:49pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

OK, how can you defend that? What is the basis for it other than some, IMHO, indefensible notion that it "seems easier to me"?

If you have worked hard at both, I think you'd appreciate the similarities...and, are you sure those two fellows are your best choices?

Why isn't the "rock" they sculpted as much a part of it as the sunset that was captured? And what if they painted a sunset from their view?

I really don't get that these are that much different, if you are talking about the "greats"...

But, cool--we are clear now!

At least we both know that the PATS suck.

And one final thing, if you really believe you can make these distinctions, then how on earth would you not view "writers" as by far the "least" accomplished of the artists?

Because JDS just wrote about his "own" experiences, why isn't this like capturing a sunset on film?

Whoops--forgot; maybe you thought he sucked, and I agreed with you, but you could use my point for any writer...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Feb 1, 2010 3:21pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

I definitely wouldn't put writers at the bottom - great literature has inspired many throughout all of mankinds historyand is one of the highest forms of art imo. which i guess goes to prove that art is ultimately all subjective opinion and in my opinion I don't put photography as high on the artistic scale as i do other forms of art. so THERE : )

ok using your argument are dj's that sample real musicians music on the same level as the original musicians they're sampling? Many people say yes but in my opinion i say no

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Feb 1, 2010 6:21pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

Actually, I guess by that last example, it (for me) confirms my point...if it is creative for music sorts to put notes together in particular ways, even if none are "new" (like Jimi H doing Watchtower) is it of any less "value" than Bob D's original? I would say most think Jimi's is "more valuable" (as you say, we can debate that all night)...this even touches on what started us going at it too I suppose!

So, I see the photo types as doing the same thing with interpretation, etc., as musicians, but in the end, I grant that one could say "I like painting better than drawing better than illustration and last, photography", and yep--we both can accept you and I have diff scales of those artistic endeavors...that would be cool by me, so in the end, since I think (?) at some point you said you did agree that if the photographer OR the painter OR the writer felt the person shouldn't copy their work, they all should be allowed to, we don't have an issue any more...

I do disagree that it "should" be a problem for ANY of them (ie, JDS "shouldn't" have cared), but as long as from your position you say a photographer would have an equal right to complain, then I wouldn't have ever said anything...

It was only that comment about "well, if it's JUST a photo...I can see that..." or whatever that got me going...

Stay well, J!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Feb 1, 2010 7:55pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

" It was only that comment about "well, if it's JUST a photo...I can see that..." or whatever that got me going..."

That's not what I said but if the gist is that I put photography lower as an art than a painter,writer, or musician then yes that is my opinion.

As for All Along the Watchtower - the Hendrix version is one of the ONLY reworks of a Dylan song that I think is worthy of the original. He added something and fleshed it out. But that wasn't the point of my example. Put it this way - if some dance DJ decided to do a sample remix of the Dead doing the ELEVEN would you think it was as creatively valid as the original? Music i think is one art form where it is socially acceptable for people to rework and redo ( because music started in the folk and tribal oral traditions )- certainly cool in the lIVE atmosphere but where i sometimes draw the line imo is why the need to put it on an album in a comercial setting? Dead not withstanding. Good Lovin? Cool tune ( or could be just an example ) live, but for them to put it on an album - lame imo. Now someone could cover the Dead (and i wish they would ) all day long but it'd be lame to my ears to put it on an album unless they had something to say with it ala the Ripple that Janes did ( which was a tribute album so that doesnt count obviously ). either way back to the orignal point is if the person who created it doesnt want you to do it then it's rude to do it anyway. That's my opinion.

Like ALI G said - RESPECK! Look it up in the dictionary it aint there anymore they took it out ( sorry love that line )

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: direwolf0701 Date: Feb 1, 2010 7:18pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

"I think a truly great painter is more talented than a truly great photgrapher "

no offense, but you quite obviously dont know much about photography. again, no offense - i will grant you they are two different mediums - but both require a similar understanding of light, color, and depth. however, since it is truly subjective, you are entitled to your opinion.

This post was modified by direwolf0701 on 2010-02-02 03:18:15

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Feb 1, 2010 7:51pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

" no offense, but you quite obviously dont know much about photography. again, no offense "

you're right Dire, I don't know much about photography. No offense taken. My opinion remains that I am more impressed of the talent of painters, drawers, sculpters than I am photographers. NEVER said photography isn't art, I just don't put it in the same scale sorry.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: direwolf0701 Date: Feb 1, 2010 8:37pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

good - i am glad that did not come across wrong.

when you say you are impressed with the talents of painters, what do you make of the half-dozen or so 6-12 year olds who have fooled the "experts" into thinking that their own works are "works of art?" I am only asking this because you seemed to imply that some photographs considered good are just "lucky" - being in the right place at the right time. i will certainly grant you that some great shots are luck, and oftentimes you need to return to the same location numerous times to get the "perfect" light, but one still needs tremendous compositional skills (never mind a very in depth knowledge of the attributes of light) to effectively produce a "great" photo. to me, this is extremely creative - just as much so a throwing some paint on a canvas and calling it "impressionist."


(not being argumentative, just curious. i personally like both photography and painting/drawing - i realize you simply said you are more "impressed" with the talents of painters, so my curiousity is piqued)

This post was modified by direwolf0701 on 2010-02-02 04:37:13

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: midnight sun Date: Feb 2, 2010 1:21am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

after reading this thread i "interviewed" my wife over dinner tonight, she's a formally trained fine artist who also photographs subjects which she sometimes refers to when painting, although her work is not altogether representational of the photos

she claims drawing is only a prerequisite, the same as learning to operate a camera or stringing together grammatically correct sentences or fluently executing scales and exercises on a musical instrument

sense of design and composition are the same for all of these disciplines, the only thing that changes from one to the next are the tools

interesting that you mention children, who are known to possess a natural sense of compositional balance

the use of filters, shutter/aperture settings, film types as well as processing techniques (incl computers) allow photographers a wide range of creative possibilities beyond purely representational...and even though she has no interest in formal training, my wife has found the photographic experience has greatly increased her overall awareness of composition and development of "eye"

sometimes an old cliche says it best, "A picture is worth..."

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Feb 2, 2010 4:29am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

Thanks, MS; and you too, Dire...these comments affirm my take on these matters, and it's much appreciated.

I don't mean to be piling on J, and I know all you well enough to know no one is doing that sort of thing...besides, J, Dire still likes the PATS so what could he possibly know? I was kinda thinking Ian would show up here--I'd love to get his take on it, and not just cause he's a good photographer...he's not one to fly off the handle like me.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: direwolf0701 Date: Feb 2, 2010 8:56am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

i didnt intend to pile on Jots either, although i took a bit of exception to the inference that photography is somewhat "less" of an art, or that it requires less talent. imho - that line of thinking is just dead wrong. However, if one simply "prefers" one medium over another, that is more than understandable.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: high flow Date: Feb 2, 2010 11:43am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

http://stevelanderos.com/gallery.html

This site belongs to my bro-in-law. He's got some talent.

It takes a creative eye, but also you must be motivated to find new perspective on everyday sights. His drive to find a "new" shot and his willingness to hike, climb, trespass or just sit and wait for hours is a big part of the process. After all that, he still must operate the equipment in a masterful way.

I'm piling-on JOTS, but at least offering some pictures of his forgotten home in return.

This post was modified by high flow on 2010-02-02 19:43:23

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Feb 2, 2010 12:27pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

those are indeed some very nice photos

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: direwolf0701 Date: Feb 2, 2010 12:31pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

he does have some talent. he is pretty good at post-processing and seems to heavily rely on HDR (which can be seen as both good and bad, but does produce stunningly colored images. it is the "in thing" right now - and camera makers are even coming out with models that produce HDR within their own processors - pretty neat idea). a little heavy on the post processing for my personal taste, but i DO like his work.

thank you for sharing that HF - appreciated. he has a good eye for angle of light and seems to stick close with the rule of thirds. hopefully he is making a buck or two in the tough world of photography!!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: mono55 Date: May 6, 2010 7:17am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

It is my understanding that each of this guys pictures are single layer, and processed "by hand". Seeing as how they are single layer, they can not be HDR. I met this photographer in person late last year, and again just last week. He was assisting in a photo workshop, where he covered the topic of "in camera".... Getting a well balanced image, with little post processing. At first, I thought he used HDR, but quickly learned that this "in camera" picture was do able by the use of ND filters to balance the image. Yes, he does use a $5000 camera setup, but he did show us that the same results could be achieved in any camera that would allow for the use of the ND filters. I have read many opinions about the use of these ND filters. Some saying that they are not much different than HDR, and some saying its the best way to get a balanced image. The use of these filters was made popular by the late Galen Rowell back in the 1970s, and 80s, when there was no such thing as Photoshop, or HDR. If you truly look at the images on this site, you will see that yes, some look "unreal" but thats because of the "balance" that one can not achieve without the filters... Just as Ansel could not achieve the balance of his images without his "zone system" and the use of "dodging & burning" in the dark room.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: direwolf0701 Date: May 6, 2010 8:07am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

ok - i stand corrected on the HDR - as you noted, easy to see why they appear to be HDR.

I am curious as to his definition of "little post processing" though (nothing wrong with post processing, i am not being a smart ass by any stretch.) An ND filter just does not "do that" alone. In any event, they are stunning photos.

Thank you for the clarification - it is appreciated.

This post was modified by direwolf0701 on 2010-05-06 15:07:33

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: mono55 Date: May 6, 2010 6:59am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

It is my understanding that each of this guys pictures are single layer, and processed "by hand". Seeing as how they are single layer, they can not be HDR. I met this photographer in person late last year, and again just last week. He was assisting in a photo workshop, where he covered the topic of "in camera".... Getting a well balanced image, with little post processing. At first, I thought he used HDR, but quickly learned that this "in camera" picture was do able by the use of ND filters to balance the image. Yes, he does use a $5000 camera setup, but he did show us that the same results could be achieved in any camera that would allow for the use of the ND filters. I have read many opinions about the use of these ND filters. Some saying that they are not much different than HDR, and some saying its the best way to get a balanced image. The use of these filters was made popular by the late Galen Rowell back in the 1970s, and 80s, when there was no such thing as Photoshop, or HDR. If you truly look at the images on this site, you will see that yes, some look "unreal" but thats because of the "balance" that one can not achieve without the filters... Just as Ansel could not achieve the balance of his images without his "zone system" and the use of "dodging & burning" in the dark room.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: direwolf0701 Date: Feb 2, 2010 8:53am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

"sense of design and composition are the same for all of these disciplines, the only thing that changes from one to the next are the tools"

excellent post which i agree with wholeheartedly. glad to see you said it somewhat more clearly than I. having been very into photography for the past few years, i can assure everyone that there is a VERY large creative element that goes into a "good" photo. i am very much still learning the "art." (but having a freakin blast in the process)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: midnight sun Date: Feb 2, 2010 1:48pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

good to see you getting into it dire! the process alone is invaluable...

all the credit is due to my better half, i could sense there was something askew about the idea of a "hierarchy of artistic media", it just happened that she does both and photos are only used as a stepping stone for her, so i believe her when she says she would never think for an instance that what she does is somehow superior to the work of the photographers she both admires and learns from

having said that, both of us tend to steer clear of installation art and techno-pop music, one of the problems is anyone can and will endeavor (no shortage of audacity) but it's like anything else, there are only so many people who have an "eye" or an "ear" to pull it off and if anything these medias are a lot more difficult to work in and still have something worthwhile to say

for me, i would rather get lost in a set of complex jazz changes that speak to me rather than struggle with finding something new to say with C and G...and to be honest, admitting that is nothing more than an indication of my own limitations :)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: direwolf0701 Date: Feb 2, 2010 6:12pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

and it sure is one heck of a process :) and a pricey one to boot. i truly enjoy the learning curve, the studying to understand, and the practice, practice, practice. it sure can be humbling at times when the results fall far short of the mark, but that only pushes further.

your wife sounds like a very artistic soul and one, undoubtedly, with great talent. i am still but a neophyte who looks forward to a never ending process of learning, discovery, and, quite simply, a true enjoyment of the arts.

i am actually in the process of putting a rather simple website together for some of my photos. i'll have to link it when i am "done" so that i can receive much abuse and nasty criticism from the mob of miscreants which frequent this place ;)

peace man :)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Feb 2, 2010 7:20pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

To think, the geeky, skirt chasing PM actually stood up for "art"...perhaps it's because the word is so much like one of my other favorite words. You know, making good use of an "f" and "BAM!", perfect for the juvenile humor around here.

And you thought I was only good for PR during wartime...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: direwolf0701 Date: Feb 2, 2010 8:16pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

i would expect no less of you than to stand up for your concept(s) of artistic principles. (irregardless of your penchant for rectal gusts)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Feb 2, 2010 12:02pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

what do I think? I think there's a lot of pretentious art snobs and abstract art can easily be interpreted a million ways. What do YOU think about the fact that if I had a high end camera and took 100 pictures in sucession for everything i photographed that I bet money I'd come up with something worthy to publish?

You all can pile on me all you want i dont care. I NEVER said photgraphy isnt an art i just happen to think that you can learn to be a good photgrapher but other forms of art take inate talent that can not be taught.

ever see that Hendrix movive that starts off with the guy that throws paint on the canvass then lo and behold it eventually looks like a portrait? you can not teach that imo. either you are born with that or not

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: direwolf0701 Date: Feb 2, 2010 12:27pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

"What do YOU think about the fact that if I had a high end camera and took 100 pictures in sucession for everything i photographed that I bet money I'd come up with something worthy to publish?"

considering that i know the photography market, i would say that statement is delusional unless you have some talent and a good eye. a high end camera really doesnt matter. i have seen pros use a $120 canon powershot and create phenomenal photos. saying a high end camera makes THE difference may be likened to me saying I could use Phil Mickelson's golf clubs and go out and shoot a 68.

think through what you say. (like I always do - lol)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Feb 2, 2010 12:39pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

" think through what you say."

why because you disagree with me? look, if so many people here have a hard on for photography then more power to them. I can appreciate a good picture, i definately was impressed with High Flows brother in laws pictures but i highly doubt i'd pay hundreds of dollars for anybodys reprint of a photograph. But I'd pay that much for a painting if i had it.

my point that you chose to gloss over is not that it doesn't take any skill to be a photgrapher what i'm saying is if i had a good enough camera ( as in speed resolution etc )and took an s-load of pictures I'd bet i'd come up with some pretty damn good ones. If I went out and bought a bunch of paint no matter how many classes i took i would never be that great of a painter.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: direwolf0701 Date: Feb 2, 2010 12:47pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

"what i'm saying is if i had a good enough camera ( as in speed resolution etc )and took an s-load of pictures I'd bet i'd come up with some pretty damn good ones. If I went out and bought a bunch of paint no matter how many classes i took i would never be that great of a painter."

and that is where i disagree with you completely. but let us just agree to disagree on this.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Feb 2, 2010 12:49pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

fine by me.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Feb 2, 2010 12:45pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

" i would say that statement is delusional unless you have some talent and a good eye"

really? you dont think subject plays a part at all? whether it be natural beauty or a place with intense happenings like NY or SF? You really dont think if you plopped yourself down all day you'd come up with some good pictures?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: direwolf0701 Date: Feb 2, 2010 12:54pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

"You really dont think if you plopped yourself down all day you'd come up with some good pictures?"

big difference between "good pictures" and art. i can take some DAMN good pictures, but I more than hesitate to call them art.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: direwolf0701 Date: Feb 2, 2010 12:53pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

subject is less important than you think. it is what the artist DOES with the subject that makes the image meaningful, interesting, etc. i have seen some jawdropping photos of a simple rusting old water pail (along with some so-so ones with an amazing subject such as the Grand Tetons, Victoria Falls, etc). it is how the artist uses light angles, refraction, aperture/DOF, etc. same with painting if you ask me.

similarly, in literature/poetry - an interesting subject is "almost" irrelevant. one of the most famous poems in the english language runs about 8 lines and its subject is a red wheelbarrow.

just sayin'

:)

This post was modified by direwolf0701 on 2010-02-02 20:53:06

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Feb 1, 2010 2:48pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

" The stuff of mine that was modified was not the issue--do you think that because it might not be significant, that's why I don't have a leg to stand on? Do you really mean to say that?"

what do you mean leg to stand on? whatever you create is yours to do with as you please. I think that if your photography isn't your life to the point where it consumes all your passion then you proabably don't have the same attachement to it as someone who does look at it this way. I see truly great artists as people who create because they have no choice not just because they like to. I don't know which category you're in and it doesn't matter anyway. Just my opinion. The bottom line is I think that if someone wants to borrow someones creation or use it they should get permission and as for photography - why is it such an insult that I don't view it as highly as other forms of art?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Feb 1, 2010 2:56pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

Sorry--you took that the wrong way; I meant that because you implied mine was "something I was so proud of...show it to me!" that you were (clearly?) suggesting that if it wasn't great, it wouldn't count...and art is art, as you say, regardless of the motivation as to how important it was to the creator, right? Many do it as a hobby, some make a living, but none of that really matters, does it?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Jan 30, 2010 6:49am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

And looking back at this I remembered I wanted to say ... as to people coming up with their own ideas, I can't remember who said it but three-quarters of all creative activity is actually stealing. Who has actually got an original idea? How many original ideas are out there?

I don't have any, so I wondered if anyone else does :)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: midnight sun Date: Jan 29, 2010 7:46am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

"I much prefer the legacy of the Grateful Dead. They were always about giving it all away."

you might have missed the flame wars here (free-access vs proprietary rights) after the Dead pulled the sbd's from the archive in Nov/05

GD benefited handsomely by allowing taping and trading due to increased fan base, whether or not this was an act of generosity is open to interpretation

Jerry also retreated into seclusion for the last half of GD's tenure

Salinger wrote 4 books (i immensely enjoyed all of them) then he wanted to be left alone, is that too much to ask?

why does it have to be all about the artist? for a lot of artists, it is only about the work, that is all that matters, and in that sense they are trying to be selfless, but it seems people are never satisfied till they can have their blood as well as their work


(hope that didn't come across overly hostile, i just get a little pissed that society in general never seems to be satisfied)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Jan 29, 2010 9:43am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

>you might have missed the flame wars here (free-access vs proprietary rights) after the Dead pulled the sbd's from the archive in Nov/05

Oh, I know. I don't want to start another flame, certainly. But is it really all or nothing? There is a vast amount of free music. I don't really have an informed opinion as to why they did it, but I don't necessarily begrudge them. Could it really all be free forever? Is that fair to their families?

>GD benefited handsomely by allowing taping and trading due >to increased fan base, whether or not this was an act of >generosity is open to interpretation

I guess so. I think it was originally good old-fashioned generosity. I'm sure they're human, and it turned into a big organization, and not everyone's motives were pure.

>Jerry also retreated into seclusion for the last half of GD's tenure

Sort of, but his seclusion was nothing compared to someone like Salinger's. Salinger was from all reports a fairly nasty person.

>Salinger wrote 4 books (i immensely enjoyed all of them) >then he wanted to be left alone, is that too much to ask?

I personally don't begrudge him wanting to be left alone. I did think he was wrong to sue some poor slob who wanted to write a sequel (it was supposed to be about Holden Caulfield in old age). I think he was *way* wrong to fight that - it's an unreasonable interpretation of copyright. Ray Bradbury did something similar.

>why does it have to be all about the artist? for a lot of >artists, it is only about the work, that is all that >matters, and in that sense they are trying to be selfless, >but it seems people are never satisfied till they can have >their blood as well as their work

True. Thomas Pynchon is another one who chose to disappear.

I don't think you were being hostile, I just think it's interesting.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: midnight sun Date: Jan 29, 2010 11:32am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

thanks for finding it interesting and not offensive...i don't want to start a war either, just pointing out that the proprietary issue is extremely complicated and applies to both circumstances...Salinger was 90 years old when he sought court protection of Catcher, somehow i can't see him doing it for the money or out of spite, but who really knows...he has a right to protect the integrity of his work and the courts have agreed with him on all of his actions, so far...if you think he was unreasonable on moral grounds then that is entirely subjective and i respect your opinion


"Salinger was from all reports a fairly nasty person."

apparently his daughter and son disagree entirely on the subject

and why should this matter? aren't his books enough of a contribution?

unlike writers and visual artists, performing artists have no choice, they have to come out of seclusion to practice their craft...giving up or dying is the only way out

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Jan 29, 2010 12:03pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

>Salinger was 90 years old when he sought court protection of Catcher, somehow i can't see him doing it for the money

True - I don't think the copyright thing for Salinger was about money but more likely ego. But keep in mind the comparison isn't exact - I certainly don't say Salinger should have given his books away free. The question of copyright was wrt a book someone *else* wanted to write. He didn't want anyone else to use his *character*. I think that's an abuse of the copyright laws, suppresses creativity, etc. I have strong opinions on copyright questions.

For me, I'd be a hypocrite to say the grateful dead should always and forever give me free music. I don't give my own work away free - never have even once (my professional work, that is; not talking about things like volunteer work). Unless I'm going to start working for free just 'cus I think my work is so good everyone should have a little bit of it, I can't complain that not every single recording this band ever made is free to me. (And most of the ones they pulled from download, you can still stream!)

>he has a right to protect the integrity of his work and >the courts have agreed with him on all of his actions, so >far...if you think he was unreasonable on moral grounds >then that is entirely subjective and i respect your opinion

Yeah, like I say I have what are apparently radical views on copyright.

"Salinger was from all reports a fairly nasty person."

>apparently his daughter and son disagree entirely on the subject

>and why should this matter? aren't his books enough of a contribution?

True and he's far from the only artist who is an unpleasant person in real life. I'm thinking of Joan Baez saying of Dylan that "a savior's a nuisance to live with at home." I was just questioning the comparison to Jerry Garcia - Garcia remained a gregarious man of the world in comparison to someone like Salinger. Salinger was really, really extreme.

>unlike writers and visual artists, performing artists have >no choice, they have to come out of seclusion to practice >their craft...giving up or dying is the only way out

True and maybe Jerry even chose to die to get out, a sad thought. Maybe if he'd been a little *more* reclusive he'd still be alive. Salinger outlived him by almost double.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: midnight sun Date: Jan 29, 2010 2:36pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

think i can see what you are saying, Jer did seem happier by comparison, although i don't think anyone really knew either of them, not in the sense that one might be able to get to "know" a less eccentric person


from what i understand the music industry kept a close eye on the Sarah McLachlan case, her former musicians tried to sue for the rights to the songs they added instrumentation to...i don't know the exact details, but i believe that they also added some chord changes as well...anyways, they ruled in McLachlin's favor, setting a precedent that arrangers/orchestrators and improvisers have no claim to composition

the example i've mentioned here before is Duane Allman's contribution to the opening guitar riff to "Layla", an unsigned "signature riff" if there ever was one

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: robthewordsmith Date: Jan 29, 2010 3:06pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

Hey, midnight - I'm interested in that Sarah McLachlan story in a fanboy kind of way because I never heard anything about it. Can you fill me in with a few more details, or direct me to an information source please?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: midnight sun Date: Jan 29, 2010 3:36pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

i remember it from tv news back about 10 years ago, amazing it doesn't Google (?)

this site has what i believe to be the court case under,
"Neudorf v. Nettwerk Productions Ltd.", looks like there was 5 separate hearings, i haven't read them all yet

http://www.canlii.org/en/index.php

edit: fix link

This post was modified by midnight sun on 2010-01-29 23:36:13

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: robthewordsmith Date: Jan 29, 2010 3:47pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

Many thanks for that, midnight. Bit late night here to take it all in right now but I'll definitely take a look tomorrow.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: robthewordsmith Date: Jan 29, 2010 7:37am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by surprise ...

Well I must say I had no idea that simply mentioning Salinger's demise would stir the pot to such an extent. It seems there are some who reckon that being force fed Catcher in their youth was tantamount to child abuse.

re CCS - you'll have seen this quote I don't doubt:

"Nobody ever asked me the meaning of this song. People seem to know exactly what I'm talking about. It's good that a few things in this world are clear to all of us."
- Robert Hunter

re McCarthy - he' s a fine writer and really does have an uncanny ability to draw a scene in what seems like extraordinarily few words.

I also rather enjoy the staccato stylings of James Ellroy, so long as he can hold back from a descent into self parody. But you do kind of feel like you have to wash your hands after reading his stuff.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jan 29, 2010 8:16am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by surprise ...

Oh yeah, though I may be taking that quote differently than you...? I take it as it surprised him because the song did not have a single, simple message (do they ever?) and that everyone takes it their own way. I always thought this one was exemplifying my overly simplistic focus on the "structure" being more significant than the "substance":

" 'China Cat' took a long time to write. I wrote it in different settings and added this and that to it. It was originally inspired by Dame Edith Sitwell, who had a way with words--I like the idea of quick, clicky assonance and alliteration like 'See me dance the polka, said Mr. Wag like a bear, with my top hat and my whiskers, that tra-la-la trapped affair.' I just like the way she put things together. I'd have to admit that before you could trace it back that there was some influence."

So, may take was this was a song written in the spirit of having "fun with words" and to me, is absolutely beautiful in its finished form...

To me this notion is similar to what we discussed when mentioning my childhood romance with Kipling...I'll never forget an instructor discussing all the deeper significance of Gunga Din (imperialism, racism, brotherly love, guilt, etc., etc., etc.) whereas my fascination was much simpler and naive: structure, cadence, word choice, etc., etc.

I just like the way it reads, likewise for CCS, and sometimes think that's all there is to it...

I also like this take on the song, and Hunter in general, from the interpretations at the site of our friend Dodd:

"Nonsense is a perfect refuge for the cherished sense of ambiguity with which Hunter seeks to imbue his lyrics; interpretation is a task which, though not entirely pointless, can also never be entirely sensible. Acknowledging this from the start is a very liberating thing; we are free to pour our own meaning into the empty cup which the song represents."

And I suppose my point is that with Salinger, Mccarthy and Hunter, I sometimes find it unnecessary, or besides the point to fill the cup...?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: robthewordsmith Date: Jan 29, 2010 9:38am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by surprise ...

I take it that Hunter's tongue was very firmly in his cheek on that first quote. And I think you're right - it's a wordplay song, pure and simple and anyone seeking meaning in the China Cat will find nothing there - or maybe everything, if you're so inclined.

I agree with you also that the cadences of Gunga Din carry you along at a fairly breathless pace and it can be enjoyed just for that, but, as your instructor was at pains to point out, it actually has something to say too.

As to filling your cup, Hunter had something to say about that too.

"Reach out your hand if your cup be empty
If your cup is full may it be again"

I think you just dip in and take whatever seems to satisfy you at the time - could be ten minutes of The Eleven, or a couple of hours with a good book or a movie. Isn't it grand to have choice?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Finster Baby Date: Jan 29, 2010 6:16pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by surprise ...

"And I think you're right - it's a wordplay song, pure and simple and anyone seeking meaning in the China Cat will find nothing there - or maybe everything, if you're so inclined."


Isn't that a common theme in almost all of Hunter's songs?
Sure seems that way to me. They all are written in a way that they can mean almost anything you want. That's what makes them stand the test of time.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jan 29, 2010 11:44am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by surprise ...

We be cool!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: robthewordsmith Date: Jan 29, 2010 11:51am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by surprise ...

As always!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: waynecs Date: Jan 29, 2010 6:56am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

It's a shame he is only known for the one book,his other 3 are well worth checking out.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Diamondhead Date: Jan 28, 2010 11:10am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

Those flowers are not for the dead; they're for the living.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jan 28, 2010 12:41pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

Exactly...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Jan 28, 2010 1:48pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

Just see that his grave is kept clean ...